FS3

[faraday]

@Seraphim73 said in FS3:

I would be that this isn't something that Faraday is particularly interested in, because it would involve re-writing chargen, but if it were something that she -was- interested in, it's as simple as just giving new players a bunch of XP and letting them buy up skills/attributes with it.

Yeah, I have zero interest in doing that because it goes radically against the two core tenets of FS3: 1) Fast and easy chargen, and 2) You can start at good at what you do. I'm sick of systems that make you start at level 1 and work your way up. If you want to start out as a hotshot fighter pilot, then start out as a hotshot fighter pilot. Also, ironically, systems that have complex math in chargen usually make me min-max because inevitably I don't have enough points to make up the character I want. I want to be good at something and well-rounded.

Now, there's nothing wrong with a system that treats advancement the same as chargen, but that's just not my system. It would be like me going to the D20 game designers and saying: "You know what guys? This system wouldn't be so bad if you would just get rid of levels." Levels are a core part of the system.

@kitteh said in FS3:

Two, the thing she's bad at, well, it makes her preeeetty bad and she's mostly always going to be that way. I think she can bump the skill once in a reasonable timeframe, but after that it will be (RL) years?

I'd have to look at your skills to have more insight, but just as an example - to go from Everyman (which is 'dude off the street who's never sat in a Viper before') to Fair (junior professional level) takes only 3 RL months. Getting to Good after that (solid professional level) is another 3 months. With the new XP system, you can do that with multiple skills during that same timeframe. So I don't think it's true that someone who's "really bad" at something is stuck that way.

That's really not that far off from what you see in the show with the Viper nuggets IMHO - especially considering that a lot of them had some civvie piloting experience before and weren't starting from scratch. Also for the Viper nuggets on BSG:Pacifica I gave them some bonus XP to represent the intensive nature of their training. The regular XP assumes you're just learning in your spare time or improving through regular use.

Stat-wise, It's not like someone who's Good completely sucks compared to an Expert. I mean, yes, obviously the Expert has an edge, but it's not tremendous unless they're going up against each other. Against the garden-variety badguys, they'll both do pretty well.

And that again touches on a key component of FS3, which is that it's designed for cooperative PvE games. Letting characters start out at different power levels makes no sense if you're going to pit them against each other.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

My own experience with FS3 is that it's fairly forgiving of low skill levels in +combat (and that high skill levels tend not to be overwhelming - friends have whined at me because their 10s in version 2.0 didn't beat 6/7/8s all the time on opposed rolls. I was not a sympathetic audience for this whining).

This is a different issue than people who feel bad because they have Good as opposed to Excellent, or feel awesome because they have Excellent as opposed to Great. But I don't know that I care about those people. I understand that many people do care, though.

ETA: I guess I should add,for the BSU people, that I play Calliope there and she's statted to be pretty decent but not min-maxed, I don't think. She's Good in Piloting and Fair in Gunnery (with Exceptional Reflexes, admittedly, I DO think you can pretty easily fuck yourself over by misunderstanding ruling attributes. This is a good deal more important than skills imo), and she still manages to dodge pretty well and hit things an OK amount of the time in +combat.

[TimmyZ]

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in FS3:

My own experience with FS3 is that it's fairly forgiving of low skill levels in +combat (and that high skill levels tend not to be overwhelming - friends have whined at me because their 10s in version 2.0 didn't beat 6/7/8s all the time on opposed rolls. I was not a sympathetic audience for this whining).

This and what @faraday said, FS3 is designed as PvE.

The dice pool difference is rarely enough to make a huge difference in results. And everyone is measuring between characters. If two to four stats are the only focus, as is even being measured, its not the system fault at all but more the implementation.

Having 3 to 4 in a stat plus ruling attribute is enough to contribute to most scenes, even if someone with an 8 shine more.

If after approval, the first player with high stats, can focus on catching up, then their not being challenged in more than one area. Most people start filling in bg skills that are cheaper after they see how they can be utilized for bg during normal rp. In my experience at least.

[Seraphim73]

@faraday said in FS3:

Yeah, I have zero interest in doing that because it goes radically against the two core tenets of FS3: 1) Fast and easy chargen, and 2) You can start at good at what you do. I'm sick of systems that make you start at level 1 and work your way up.

Yup. I wasn't actually suggesting that you do make the change, because based on our conversations, I know that you don't see the difference as a problem with the system. Totally fine with that, it's your system, and it's one that I like to use. Just noting that there -is- a solution for those who think that it's a problem (from a game-design perspective, a game-runner actually making that change, as I noted, would have a ton of work to do).

And that again touches on a key component of FS3, which is that it's designed for cooperative PvE games. Letting characters start out at different power levels makes no sense if you're going to pit them against each other.

This is something that I think sometimes doesn't get emphasized enough, and sometimes gets emphasized too much. I think it bears repeating that FS3 is NOT designed for PvP games, because a lot of people forget that when they're looking at the "unbalance" in chargen versus XP or whatever else might be bugging them at the moment. I'm guilty of that myself. And there's enough randomness in 2.0 that a dice pool of 14 isn't that much better than a dice pool of 11 (lowering the target number for successes made results a little more predictable, but as recent events on BSU showed, not all that more predictable).

That said, I think that gamers are (to some degree) competitive by nature. We like our numbers to go up, we like our numbers to be at least in the same ball-park as those of our fellow players, and some of us like to brag about having bigger numbers (I try not to, and usually succeed, Van has an Expert Piloting and a Great Gunnery--there are certainly people with higher numbers in both of those skills). I think it's important edited to add: to know that even if characters aren't directly pitting their skills against one another (outside of friendly competition), they'll be comparing their skills, and some people will be disappointed when others come out of chargen with higher skills and they can't catch up to those folks.

Then again, that's part of FS3--skills take time to increase, and not everyone starts out at the same place... it's built as a closer reflection to reality (or at least Hollywood reality) than a game where absolute balance is king, and that's by design.

[TimmyZ]

@Seraphim73 said in FS3:

This is something that I think sometimes doesn't get emphasized enough, and sometimes gets emphasized too much. I think it bears repeating that FS3 is NOT designed for PvP games, because a lot of people forget that when they're looking at the "unbalance" in chargen versus XP or whatever else might be bugging them at the moment. I'm guilty of that myself. And there's enough randomness in 2.0 that a dice pool of 14 isn't that much better than a dice pool of 11 (lowering the target number for successes made results a little more predictable, but as recent events on BSU showed, not all that more predictable).

And luck, at least on FS3.1 and .2, haven't read enough .3. It's less stats and more going out and rping. That+5 dice to the pool equalizes any 'big' bonus a min maxer might perceive. I've seen the maximizer go out and actively rp too, but they seem to understand the PvE aspect and are comfortable coming up with suitable PrP material too.

It's a system for an rp environment, less a game to see who is best. If everyone enjoys themselves, all is well.

[The Sands]

One possible variation that would help with the balance between dinosaur and newbie characters would be to have the character progression be linear but have the challenge resolution system work on a geometric system, such as a bell curve. When two characters are evenly matched the odds are 50/50. When one character has X points more than the other it moves to 75/25 and as that difference continues to increase the odds continue to approach some arbitrary maximum (such as 999/1 or 95/5 or whatever). The trick, though, is that it only approaches that point. It never reaches it. This means that both a guy with an 11 and a guy with a 12 will almost certainly beat the stuffing out of that guy with a 1 but the edge that the guy with the 12 has over the guy with the 11 is pretty slight in such a case. The only place where the guy with the 12 has a really noticeable advantage over the guy with the 11 is when the two of them are doing something really, really hard, and even then while it is a noticeable advantage it doesn't mean the guy with the 11 has no chance.

A lot of modern game systems actually use something like that though they may be unaware of it. FS3 does itself. The mechanism of rolling more dice and comparing them gives you that sort of distribution. The only problem is that because it is being done ad hoc rather than by design they often don't do it 'cleanly' and have spots where funny things can happen to the probabilities.

Naturally such a pure mathematical solution isn't something you would want to use in tabletop roleplay since it would be either a pain to be recalculating things all the time or else it would be very chart intensive but since our games occur inside computers we aren't limited by such things at all.

[magee101]

@TimmyZ said in FS3:

Sorry @faraday , just ads for FS3 games always get derailed by rules discussion.

This is to move discussions here.

In the Fifth Kingdon thread age was brought up.

No one like young prodigy. But let's look at this. Hockey, best player right now is Connor McDavid. Turned 20 in January, only player to score 100 points this season.

Every Olympic athlete, is younger.

There have been studies on this. Some coorelation to age and youth having that belief they just can, and that diminishes as we age.

I believe the grizzled vet being physically superior is more a trope than an actuality.

Realistically one would see a decline as age progresses. More systems used to have this ... Physical goes down, mental goes up.

I think the young prodigy argument is overrated though.

Its pretty common that the grizzled old vet doesn't win because he's faster or stronger, it's because he knows a few tricks he's picked up over the years. He outthinks and outexperiences the younger guy. That's pretty common student/mentor trope thing. Old guy knows everything you do about how to use his muscles, but he also knows a couple other things you haven't even thought of yet that lets him win the fight, liek certain leverage positions in close combat or things like that.

Young prodigies are generally best in the mental aspects, I like them but generally the character's personality has to be as mature as the amount of knowledge they supposedly have. I really like Dresden File's Archive as an example of a child prodigy. Intelligent, young, mature, but there are these little moments of childhood that peek through. Generally what I've found of 'child prodigy' on text-based games are lil assholes that stir up drama and no one can do anything cause they're OMG GODLIKE

[TimmyZ]

@magee101 said in FS3:

@TimmyZ said in FS3:

Sorry @faraday , just ads for FS3 games always get derailed by rules discussion.

This is to move discussions here.

In the Fifth Kingdon thread age was brought up.

No one like young prodigy. But let's look at this. Hockey, best player right now is Connor McDavid. Turned 20 in January, only player to score 100 points this season.

Every Olympic athlete, is younger.

There have been studies on this. Some coorelation to age and youth having that belief they just can, and that diminishes as we age.

I believe the grizzled vet being physically superior is more a trope than an actuality.

Realistically one would see a decline as age progresses. More systems used to have this ... Physical goes down, mental goes up.

I think the young prodigy argument is overrated though.

Its pretty common that the grizzled old vet doesn't win because he's faster or stronger, it's because he knows a few tricks he's picked up over the years. He outthinks and outexperiences the younger guy. That's pretty common student/mentor trope thing. Old guy knows everything you do about how to use his muscles, but he also knows a couple other things you haven't even thought of yet that lets him win the fight, liek certain leverage positions in close combat or things like that.

Young prodigies are generally best in the mental aspects, I like them but generally the character's personality has to be as mature as the amount of knowledge they supposedly have. I really like Dresden File's Archive as an example of a child prodigy. Intelligent, young, mature, but there are these little moments of childhood that peek through. Generally what I've found of 'child prodigy' on text-based games are lil assholes that stir up drama and no one can do anything cause they're OMG GODLIKE

I still find myself in disagreement. Looking at contemporary sports again, same top hocky player Connor McDavid.

He understands the change of play new ticks and does things unheard of. He outthinks the grizzled veteran defensemen.

The captain tends to be the middle aged player. 30 something, after 30, its typical to assume a pro athlete is on the way down, to inevitable retirement. Some stay on to teach the younger ones, instill team play, teach field awareness. Connor McDavid is one of the youngest captains to date and he is teaching the more 'experienced players' these concepts on a new level of metagame (tricks and field awareness).

The 'veteran' in the military is a leader, not the soldier doing the physical activity as physical acuity is lowering with age. If one isn't promoted to a position of leadership versus being the physical doer, they're usually shown the door (not enough merit to justify a higher position relative to their age).

I agree, grizzled vet is a trope, it is not reality. I don't think the older play has to be pro swordsmen and younger player is unheard of as having a high physical skill holds water realistically.

Edit; As a trope, yeah I like to see grizzled, intelligent vet take down young inexperienced rookie. I'm old enough to appreciate the appeal of this in my 40s, but realistically I know it isn't true. I don't think its a good argument against a system that allows 'new' player to have a potential to have veteran level stats.

[kitteh]

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in FS3:

My own experience with FS3 is that it's fairly forgiving of low skill levels in +combat (and that high skill levels tend not to be overwhelming - friends have whined at me because their 10s in version 2.0 didn't beat 6/7/8s all the time on opposed rolls. I was not a sympathetic audience for this whining).

This is a different issue than people who feel bad because they have Good as opposed to Excellent, or feel awesome because they have Excellent as opposed to Great. But I don't know that I care about those people. I understand that many people do care, though.

ETA: I guess I should add,for the BSU people, that I play Calliope there and she's statted to be pretty decent but not min-maxed, I don't think. She's Good in Piloting and Fair in Gunnery (with Exceptional Reflexes, admittedly, I DO think you can pretty easily fuck yourself over by misunderstanding ruling attributes. This is a good deal more important than skills imo), and she still manages to dodge pretty well and hit things an OK amount of the time in +combat.

OK, you're actually worse than me I know I did one scene where people were doing some real rolls as opposed to combat code things, so I could see the dice pools being rolled and it seemed like everyone either matched (at the thing I was good at) or exceeded me, but maybe that was a small selection, I dunno.

The thing in combat is that it mostly seems like I miss all the time. Even when I'm piling on bonuses (I was whiffing with luck and aggressive stance). Maybe that was a string of really terrible luck, I dunno. Again I'm not in it to be one of the 'omg triple ace I am teh best!' people, but from an RP standpoint, there's only so much 'miss' 'miss' 'miss' you can pose before you start to check out of the scene because it's repetitive and there's only so much you can type.

@kitteh said in FS3:

Two, the thing she's bad at, well, it makes her preeeetty bad and she's mostly always going to be that way. I think she can bump the skill once in a reasonable timeframe, but after that it will be (RL) years?

I'd have to look at your skills to have more insight, but just as an example - to go from Everyman (which is 'dude off the street who's never sat in a Viper before') to Fair (junior professional level) takes only 3 RL months. Getting to Good after that (solid professional level) is another 3 months. With the new XP system, you can do that with multiple skills during that same timeframe. So I don't think it's true that someone who's "really bad" at something is stuck that way.

Isn't Fair to Good 4 months? I see 1/4 on my thing, anyway. And after that it's a year, right? Those are both pretty big chunks of time. I mean, don't get me wrong. I love the game and the XP spending tracking sheet thing is a cool design, I'm just a little leery of this part. Most games I've played don't even last 16 months

[faraday]

@Seraphim73 said in FS3:

That said, I think that gamers are (to some degree) competitive by nature. We like our numbers to go up, we like our numbers to be at least in the same ball-park as those of our fellow players, and some of us like to brag about having bigger numbers...

I don't disagree, but this is simply not something I see as a problem needing to be solved. The difference between Great and Expert is a few percentage points. If someone's going to be bent out of shape just because their rating only says "Great" and Bob's says "Expert" and they can't catch up to Bob....that's on them. They had a chance to start out as "Expert" too.

@kitteh said in FS3:

I could see the dice pools being rolled and it seemed like everyone either matched (at the thing I was good at) or exceeded me, but maybe that was a small selection, I dunno.

When you're talking about a character's core professional skills, there are really only 3 common values - Good/Great/Expert. Occasionally there's a rookie with Fair (like @Three-Eyed-Crow) and very rarely there's an Elite, but most are 4-6. So yeah, there's not a huge amount of variation. That was one of the sacrifices made in the move from 2nd Ed. to 3rd Ed. by compressing the ratings chart - a choice of simplicity over flexibility (since the bigger range was causing no end of confusion and nitpicking).

The thing in combat is that it mostly seems like I miss all the time. Even when I'm piling on bonuses (I was whiffing with luck and aggressive stance). Maybe that was a string of really terrible luck, I dunno.

Since people tend to pick a target and stick with it until it's dead, sometimes what happens is you've picked one of the higher-rated badguys without realizing it. Also, most combats are over in 6-8 rounds, so while it takes a few hours of RL, you really don't have a ton of rolls there to even things out if you're just having a string of bad luck. I don't know what can really be done about either of these things but I'm open to suggestions.

Isn't Fair to Good 4 months? I see 1/4 on my thing, anyway. And after that it's a year, right? Those are both pretty big chunks of time.

Fair -> Good was supposed to be 3, that's just a glitch. And Good -> Great is "only" 4 more months. I know that's a good chunk of time in MUSH timelines, but it's still very compressed compared to RL.

I'm totally fine if people don't like it. But it's done that way on purpose. FS3 doesn't have a 'dino' problem because of the slow advancement. You can be fresh out of chargen and be on par with existing characters in the skills that matter most for your character.

[Seraphim73]

@The-Sands said in FS3:

One possible variation that would help with the balance between dinosaur and newbie characters

The issue that some people have (and that isn't an issue for Fara) isn't about dinosaurs versus newbies. In fact, I've seen games where the first wave of people to come in have "sane" stats, and then the next wave, people who don't know the game creator, come in min-maxed and outpace the original group, despite the original group's XP head start.

@TimmyZ I believe that Luck is +3 base, but yes, spending Luck really does help -- as long as the other guy doesn't spend Luck too.

As for the grizzled vet vs prodigy in sports... it depends on the sport. If you look at American football, for instance, the best players at a few positions (running back, flanker, outside linebacker, cornerback) tend to be younger players because they need super-fast-twitch reflexes. But the best quarterbacks? Barring a few true prodigies, the best quarterbacks (and offensive linemen, middle linebackers, safeties, slot receivers, and several other positions) are those who are still young enough to have quality reflexes, but who have put in several years at the pro level to learn the tricks of the trade.

It sounds like Conner McDavid is one of those prodigies (Russell Wilson would be my football example, but I'm a Seahawks fan) whose work ethic matches the veterans and who is also young enough that their reflexes are in better shape than the canny vets.

@kitteh Your ability to hit in combat can also depend wildly on what skill enemy your targeting (and the other PCs are targeting). Since we don't know how good the enemies are even after we attack them (they may have just rolled poorly/well) that's pretty much a crapshoot. (And I see that Fara already addressed this... whoops... that's what I get for typing up something so long.) It can indeed be very frustrating to see miss-miss-miss all through a combat... I totally agree. Sometimes (if it makes sense ICly) if I'm having a rough time of it, I'll switch off to a damaged enemy, just to get a danged hit.

@faraday said in FS3:

I don't disagree, but this is simply not something I see as a problem needing to be solved.

Yup! I completely understand, accept, and have no problem with the fact that this is a design choice that you made. Again, I'm not addressing it as something that needs to be changed, just talking from a theoretical game design standpoint of how it -could- be changed, because I'm a game design nerd.

[kitteh]

@faraday OK! They show as 1/4 and 1/12 but if that's just a visual error, fair enough!

Re: the combat stuff, maybe it would be good if there was some indication of who the elite enemy pilots are? I realize they're all faceless robots, but... it should be obvious RP-wise if the guy you're chasing is doing dogfighter loop-de-loops all around you vs. you're 'just missing' by a hair a bunch of times (which is annoying but just luck). Even if combat is 6 rounds, spending 4-5 of them missing repeatedly is dull. I'm OK with being the noob pilot who goes after the 'easy' enemies while the OMGAce guys show off and fight the big-bads.

Edit: Also is exceptional = elite? The word-instead-of-number stuff is a little confusing.

[faraday]

@kitteh said in FS3:

@faraday OK! They show as 1/4 and 1/12 but if that's just a visual error, fair enough!

Re: the combat stuff, maybe it would be good if there was some indication of who the elite enemy pilots are?

I worried that there would be the opposite effect - that people would just pick off the low-hanging fruit to buff their kill count and then gang up on the big bad at the end.

My vision for how it would play out is that someone would be like: "Frak! I keep missing! What is UP with this guy? Hey Wingman - lend a hand would you?" But that doesn't really seem to be how it works out.

But I'll open up a discussion in-game so people can weigh in. I'm not dead-set on how it works at the moment.

Edit: Also is exceptional = elite? The word-instead-of-number stuff is a little confusing.

Exceptional is for attributes. It means you're gifted with natural talent, basically. Elite is a skill, representing the peak of knowledge/training/experience.

So to @TimmyZ's point about athletes, you might expect a young hockey sensation to have Exceptional Reflexes and Great skill (5+5 = 10 dice) whereas a 30-year-old captain might have declined to Good Reflexes but now has an Expert skill (4+6 = 10 dice). At some point the sensation might keep going up and the captain might keep going down, but this varies. Just as I'm willing to accept a young character who's a prodigy, I'm also willing to accept an old character who's gone out of their way to maintain their physical condition.

[kitteh]

@faraday

I think the issues overall with how the air combat works (in terms of things that are non-cinematic, min-max-y, etc) is that there's nothing that really represents the essence of pairing off in dogfights or the value of wingmen. People do pick targets and stick with them but I think that's mostly for RP value as much as kill chasing (and which is realistic, I think? if we're supposed to be dogfighting not just generically fighting everyone at the same time?), but there's also no penalty (at least that I'm aware of) for leaving a foe uncovered or additional value for pairing up with a wingman.

IE, if it was dangerous to leave bogies alone, the 'everyone teams up on the ace' would mean all the mook guys suddenly get bonuses and tear up the squad way more than they would normally. It would also mean there was more value in 'calling for help' if you were having trouble if you got bonuses for double-teaming the guy, as opposed to what it is now, which is essentially just conceding that you're worthless and asking someone else with better stats to come fight them. You may as well switch to another target that might have lower stats, right?

[faraday]

@kitteh Well, actually there are inherent bonuses in the system to pairing up, in terms of suppression, increased odds of damaging the targets (which makes them even easier to finish off) and reducing the number firing back at you. I think to some degree it's the IC and OOC motivation of kill-counting that makes people more interested in soling targets, because you see a very different behavior from players in ground combat.

And yes, sticking to your target is good practice, but anyone who's played Wing Commander or some other air combat simulator without "target lock" knows how tough that is in a swirling dogfight

[kitteh]

@faraday

Ok, that's good! I mean, maybe the guy we targeted was REALLY SUPER BADASS because even when there were 3 of us it wouldn't die, IDK.

I do still hink it makes sense to telegraph ridiculous skill levels on opponents to some degree. Even if it motivates the players to act differently, so what? It's RP, and it should be apparent if someone is that totally amazing, but it's impossible to glean that info from dice.

[Seraphim73]

@kitteh Actually, Van's gotten most of his kills by picking off enemies who were targeting other PCs. Those PCs were ignoring them even as they shot at the PCs, so Van picked them off. So while there may not be explicit mechanical bonuses to working as a wingman (or with one), it certainly helps your kill-count. And, as Fara said, concentrating fire wipes out enemies faster, which makes it less likely that they'll be able to hit you.

I suggested an Aid Another action in +combat to Fara once (give up your turn to provide a +3 to an ally's attack--suppression already does the opposite, penalizing an enemy's attack), but she noted that she thought very few people would use it. After some thought, I agreed with her. There aren't many people who would give up a turn to boost someone else's attack until the very end, when it was 1-2 enemies against a mass of friendlies, and at that point you're just feeding kills to people anyhow.

I think it would be interesting to call out any enemies who are at the Boss-level in poses, but only if they're being obvious about how they're flying. I could totally see (especially in Cylons) that they wouldn't be so obviously better as the ones who are always just half a step ahead of the poor organics. In my mind, better Cylons wouldn't show off the way some human aces do, they'd just kill Colonials better (or get not-killed by Colonials better). Sometimes that would be obvious, other times it wouldn't.

Edited to add: Sometimes it really is just the dice. Back on The Fifth World, we had a basic NPC Hostile soldier who stayed in combat for like 3-4 turns with a -20 to -35 penalty. It wasn't that it was any better than the others, it just kept rolling the 25% chance of success on 1 die.

[Lotherio]

For what it's worth, of its detail combat in planes ... I'd much more prefer a dogfight mux that is only dogfight with complex code ... Like old Battletech 3065 ( have i said this enough lately? Had anyone noticed I said it a few times?).

Otherwise the simpler the better for me, especially on MUSH. I'm on a MUSH for the roleplay more than the game play, which I can find in other Mu* environments.

[kitteh]

@Seraphim73 I don't think most people are 'ignoring' things shooting them, so much as we're trying to RP the realistic shape of a dogfight. It actually makes a lot more sense to be shooting something that isn't shooting you (because that requires you playing chicken, basically) and instead shoot something that's shooting someone else, so you get chains of people chasing their target while covering someone else and being covered by someone else in turn, etc.

So in general I think most people are trying to RP realistically over just inflate kill counts, so @faraday's worry about disclosing enemy skill doesn't seem that bad to me. In fact, it seems like it would give the 'elite' players something more to brag about, when they take out tough targets, because the kill counts are pretty meaningless (they reflect basically how long you've been on the game and how high your initial stats were). People talking about 'omg you made Ace x5' is kind of... meaningless, beyond a point, but 'wow, you took out that really badass raider that none of us could touch' seems like it would actually be worthy of RP fodder.

However we can't RP that if we don't actually know the raider is more skilled.

[faraday]

@Seraphim73 said in FS3:

Edited to add: Sometimes it really is just the dice. Back on The Fifth World, we had a basic NPC Hostile soldier who stayed in combat for like 3-4 turns with a -20 to -35 penalty. It wasn't that it was any better than the others, it just kept rolling the 25% chance of success on 1 die.

Yeah I fixed that with the latest patch of 3rd edition. NPCs will just die when they get to a certain level of damage, because otherwise it's just silly.

@kitteh said in FS3:

However we can't RP that if we don't actually know the raider is more skilled.

But... why not? I mean, is it not enough that everybody was trying to hit him and couldn't, or that the Raider just took out two of your guys before Harvey finally brought him down? Maybe stuff like that is a little subtle and more readily attributed to luck, but like you said - when three of you are all hammering at the guy and he just won't die that should show that he's unusual, right?